Category: Planning

Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd: Admn 22 Aug 2013

The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had also preserved the supporting text and reasoned justification: ‘it makes no sense to preserve naked ‘policies’ shorn of their intellectual underpinning, interpretative context and expressly factual matrix and justifications. It makes even less sense to seek to preserve the stark wording of policies only, but then somehow proscribe any resort in the future to any ‘map’ or ‘reasoned justification’ or ‘other descriptive or explanatory matter’ or ‘supporting text’ which it was intended by the framers of the policy should be had as a necessary aid to understanding, interpreting and implementing the policy. In my view, there is no conceptual difficulty in saving only ‘the policy’ but permitting, and expecting, consideration of it in its appropriate textural context.’ Applying those properly here the decision could not stand. The requirement to demonstrate a need for such facilities remained, and this was wider than the private interests of those seeking to establish the new course. The plan itself was so long established that it could not now in law be challenged.
The Council majority had failed to apply the ‘very special circumstances’ test when deciding that the Green Belt policy had not been breached, failing to recognise that there was ‘inappropriate development’. Nowhere was there any mention of the Council majority being satisfied that there were ‘very special circumstances’ justifying the ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt. There was no explanation as to why the Council majority disagreed with the planning officers’ advice. The ‘circumstances’ must be ‘very special’ as opposed to common or garden planning considerations. They must also be ‘not merely special, in the sense of being unusual or exceptional, but very special’. The absence of harm or the fact that the harm caused is ‘slight’ ‘will rarely be sufficient to constitute very special circumstances’.

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 340
Bailii, Justiciary, WLRD
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1999, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Residents Against Waste Site Ltd v Lancashire County Council and Another Admn 7-Nov-2007
The company, formed to oppose it, sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant planning permission for a waste disposal facility. . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Cited – Turner v Secretary of State of the Environment 1974
Ackner J upheld the standing of the chairman of a local preservation society who had appeared at a public local inquiry by permission of the inspector to challenge the decision. Ackner J said: ‘I see no merit in the proposition that a person who has . .
Cited – Regina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
Cited – Regina v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Limited and Onyx (UK) Limited, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group Ltd Admn 15-Mar-2000
. .
Cited – Stringer v Ministry of Housing and Local Government 1970
The material considerations to be allowed for by the local authority in exercising its planning functions are considerations of a planning nature, ‘all considerations relating to the use and development of land are considerations which may, in a . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
Cited – Regina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA 7-Feb-1997
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning . .
Cited – Regina v Newbury District Council ex parte Blackwell Admn 29-Oct-1997
Where members of a planning committee reject their planning officers’ advice ‘there must be a rational and discernable basis for doing so’. . .
Cited – City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals) HL 31-Oct-1997
The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hindley Admn 18-Dec-1997
The Home Secretary has the power to fix the tariff sentence for a lifer at her whole life where that was needed in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and of deterrence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ said: ‘I can see no reason, in . .
Cited – Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
Cited – Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Wyre Forest District Council Admn 27-Mar-2009
Ousely J set out the basic standard for the reasons to be given by a planning authority for its decision saying that: ‘The fundamental test is ‘whether an interested person could see why planning permission is granted and what conclusion was reached . .
Cited – Siraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd and Another v Southwark Borough Council and Another Admn 30-Mar-2012
Lindblom J set out three statements of the principles relevant to the issue of reasons: ‘1) A local planning authority’s obligation to give summary reasons when granting permission is not to be equated with the Secretary of State’s obligation to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.514467

North Norfolk Planning Watch Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mcintyre and Thrower: Admn 19 Dec 2017

Application valid though on wrong form

Challenge to grant of planning permission for demolition of an unlisted building in conservation area. The planning applicants had given all the correct information, but not using the correct form.
Held: The claim failed. The form and application was substantialy to the same effect.

Martin Rodger QC
[2017] EWHC 3345 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 842
Bailii, WLRD
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.602593

Baker and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: CA 28 Feb 2008

Dyson LJ considered the interaction between race relations law and planning permission in the context of gypsy encampments. He looked at section 71 of the 1976 Act and said: ‘In my judgment, it is important to emphasise that the section 71(1) duty is not a duty to achieve a result, namely to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination or to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. It is a duty to have due regard to the need to achieve these goals. The distinction is vital. Thus the Inspector did not have a duty to promote equality of opportunity between the appellants and persons who were members of different racial groups; her duty was to have due regard to the need to promote such equality of opportunity. She had to take that need into account, and in deciding how much weight to accord to the need, she had to have due regard to it. What is due regard? In my view, it is the regard that is appropriate in all the circumstances. These include on the one hand the importance of the areas of life of the members of the disadvantaged racial group that are affected by the inequality of opportunity and the extent of the inequality; and on the other hand, such countervailing factors as are relevant to the function which the decision-maker is performing.’
‘The question in every case is whether the decision-maker has in substance had due regard to the relevant statutory need. Just as the use of a mantra referring to the statutory provision does not of itself show that the duty has been performed, so too a failure to refer expressly to the statute does not of itself show that the duty has not been performed. The form of words suggested by Mr Drabble to which I have referred above may not of itself be sufficient to show that the duty has been performed. To see whether the duty has been performed, it is necessary to turn to the substance of the decision and its reasoning.’

Dyson LJ, May LJ, Sir Robin Auld
[2008] EWCA Civ 141, [2008] ACD 62, [2008] 2 P and CR 6, [2009] PTSR 809, [2008] BLGR 239
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Race Relations Act 1976 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Watkins-Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School and Another Admn 29-Jul-2008
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .
Cited – AC v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust, Equality and Human Rights Commissions intervening Admn 25-May-2010
The claimant, a male to female transsexual, challenged a decision by the respondent to refuse breast augmentation treatment. The Trust had a policy ‘GRS is a Low Priority treatment due to the limited evidence of clinical effectiveness and is not . .
Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative, Discrimination

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.266003

Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning: HL 2 Jul 1947

A government minister had decided to confirm a draft new town order following a public local inquiry. One of the grounds on which the decision was challenged was that the minister could not consider the report and the objections without a pre-disposition to favour the confirmation of the draft order, since it took forward a government policy to which he was necessarily committed.
Held: The minister’s decision-making function was not of a judicial or quasi-judicial character: the purpose of the report was to provide him with information, and the only question was whether he had genuinely considered the report and the objections when they were submitted to him. There is no universal rule requiring that decision-makers must possess the independence and impartiality required of a court or tribunal: it is necessary to take account of the constitutional position of the decision-maker, and of the nature of the decision.

Lord Thankerton
[1947] UKHL 3, [1948] AC 87, (1947) 176 LT 312, [1947] 2 All ER 289
Bailii
New Towns Act 1946
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.248506

Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others: QBD 27 Jun 2011

The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application succeeded. Having examined the case law the need for committal was established. The defendant was to be committed to prison for 28 days, that sentence suspended for 4 weeks to allow him to remove the caravans and for the children to finish their school term. A fine would be insufficient to mark the seriousness of need to obey court orders.

Cranston J
[2011] EWHC 1626 (QB)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lincolnshire County Council Ex Parte Atkinson; Regina v Wealden District Council Ex Parte Wales and Others QBD 3-Oct-1995
A local Authority must make proper welfare enquiries before seeking to remove unlawful campers. The new draconic legislation must be seen in its context. The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 10-Nov-2010
Regional Spatial Stategies, setting targets for new homes within regions, and governing planning consents were to be withdrawn by the respondent and replaced in due course by a new planning bill. The claimant objected that this could only be . .
Cited – Brentwood Borough Council v Ball and Others QBD 8-Oct-2009
The court refused the local authority an injunction to remove gypsies occupying land in beach of planning controls. . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v South Cambridgeshire District Council CA 24-Oct-2008
The court considered the use of injunctions to restrain breaches of planning control. The applicants were gypsies who had taken up occupation of land in mobile homes. The respondent had given them twelve months for them to find alternative . .
Cited – Regina v Newland CACD 1987
The appellant, a woman of gypsy descent had been fined for breach of a planning enforcement order. The crown court judge had concluded cursorily that her planning appeal was hopeless and simply designed to frustrate the local authority. By the time . .
Cited – Guilford Borough Council v Smith QBD 18-May-1993
An injunction had been obtained to enforce planning controls against the defendant gypsies, and the council now sought committal for breach.
Held: Committal was refused. Only a deliberate or wilful contempt attracted imprisonment and the . .
Cited – Guilford Borough Council v Smith QBD 18-May-1993
An injunction had been obtained to enforce planning controls against the defendant gypsies, and the council now sought committal for breach.
Held: Committal was refused. Only a deliberate or wilful contempt attracted imprisonment and the . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Baker and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 28-Feb-2008
Dyson LJ considered the interaction between race relations law and planning permission in the context of gypsy encampments. He looked at section 71 of the 1976 Act and said: ‘In my judgment, it is important to emphasise that the section 71(1) duty . .
Cited – South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell CA 2005
The Council had taken out an injunction under section 187B of the 1990 Act to prevent unknown persons placing caravans on certain lands. The defendants acted in breach of those injunctions, and the Council requested their committal for contempt. The . .
Cited – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – Mid-Bedfordshire District Council v Thomas Brown and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The land owners, gypsies, had purchased agricultural land intending to occupy it as residential land in breach of green belt planning controls. The council had obtained an injunction, but appealed its suspension.
Held: The council’s appeal . .
Cited – South Bucks District Council v Smith and Another QBD 23-Feb-2006
David Clarke J held that in the light of paragraphs 45 and 46 of circular 1/06, it would be disproportionate to force a gypsy family to leave their site situated in the green belt. They had occupied it in breach of planning control for thirty-two . .
Cited – South Bedfordshire District Council v Price and Others CA 5-May-2006
The defendants sought to appeal orders restraining them from the use of their land for residential purposes, and were awaiting the outcome of their appeal. They now appealed against the enforcement of committal orders for their breaches of the . .
Cited – Wychavon District Council v Rafferty and others CA 27-Apr-2006
The council had obtained a without notice injunction restraining Romany gypsies from stationing caravans on certain land. They subsequently applied for planning permission to use the land to have three mobile homes and several touring caravans. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Planning

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.441225

Regina (Ashbrook) v East Sussex County Council: CA 20 Nov 2002

The claimant complained that the respondent had failed properly to secure removal of an admitted obstruction to a public footpath. The landowner had applied for a diversion of the footpath, which the respondent recommended for adoption, but the complainant had objected that the respondent had failed to follow its own policies, in that it should have considered first whether the obstruction could reasonably have been removed. The matter was to be referred to the Secretary of State for a possible public enquiry.
Held: The policy document was not formally adopted, but the council had not taken proper account of the existence of a continued flouting of a court order by the landowner, and the Order for diversion must be quashed and the Council must reconsider the application.

Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lady Justice Arden
[2002] EWCA Civ 1701, [2003] 1 P and CR 13
Bailii
Highways Act 1980 119
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – Regina (Hargrave and Another) v Stroud District Council CA 22-Jul-2002
The applicants had sought to vary a footpath to move it further away from their house. The parish council objected. The council had decided that it would be expedient under the Act to divert it, but went on to decide against a diversion and against . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Newham and Manik Bibi and Ataya Al-Nashed CA 26-Apr-2001
CS The housing authority had mistakenly thought that it was obliged to re-house the applicants under the Act with secure accommodation, and promised them accordingly.
Held: That promise had created a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Planning

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.178439

Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2014

The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the starting-point for the Secretary of State’s deliberations. However, it is his statutory function to make a planning judgment and whilst he should give due consideration to the inspector’s planning judgment, because of the latter’s knowledge of the particular case and his planning expertise, he is not required to follow it.
The decision letter that the Secretary of State disagreed with the Inspector’s assessment that the harm caused to the setting of heritage assets, particularly Burton Agnes Hall, was ‘limited’, as the Inspector found. The Secretary of State considered that the harm would be greater than limited, on the Inspector’s own findings, as summarised above. In particular, because the turbines would be visible from the Hall and its gardens, as a ‘distracting, modern, discordant presence’, and was entitled, in the exercise of his planning judgment, to differ from the Inspector in the assessment of the harm to the setting of the heritage assets which would be caused by the proposed wind farm.

Lang DBE J
[2014] EWHC 4041 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1978
The court considered the degree of detail to be provided in a decision notice: ‘Since the courts will only interfere if he acts beyond his powers (which is the foundation of all the above principles), it is clear that his powers include the . .
Cited – City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals) HL 31-Oct-1997
The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – Lord Luke of Pavenham v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1968
The court considered a planning appeal where the Minister had departed from the the inspector’s decision. The plaintiff challenged the decision on the basis that the Minister had differed from the Inspector’s findings on ‘matters of fact’ under . .
Cited – Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 26-Jan-1971
The Minister confirmed a compulsory purchase order despite it having been made without any supporting evidence.
Held: The order was set aside. The Minister had erred in not following his Inspector’s conclusion that a compulsory purchase order . .
Cited – Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
Cited – Regina (Novalong Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government Admn 2008
Sullivan J rejected an argument that the Secretary of State should have deferred to an Inspector’s judgment as to the merits of a planning application, the Inspector having had a personal viewing of the site. He said: ‘Mr Katkowski referred to the . .
Cited – Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council and Others CA 18-Feb-2014
Section 66(1) of the 1990 Act requires a decision-maker to give ‘the desirability of preserving the building or its setting’ not merely careful consideration but considerable importance and weight when balancing the advantages of the proposed . .
Cited – Eckersley v Binnie CA 1988
The court considered the duties of a judge considering conflicting expert evidence: ‘In resolving conflicts of expert evidence, the judge remains the judge; he is not obliged to accept evidence simply because it comes from an illustrious source; he . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Dunster Properties Ltd v The First Secretary of State and Another CA 28-Feb-2007
An Inspector ought to give reasons for departing from the decision of a previous Inspector . .
Cited – Tegni Cymru Cyf v The Welsh Ministers and Another CA 24-Nov-2010
. .
Cited – Georgiou v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 7-Jul-2011
. .
Cited – Welsh Ministers and Another v RWE Npower Renewables Ltd CA 15-Mar-2012
Appeal by the Welsh ministers against the quashing of their decision refusing the respondent’s application for planning permission for a wind farm. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 19-Jun-2015
The claimant company challenged the involvement of a constituency MP in a campaign opposing the grant of a planning permissions (in this case for a wind farm). In particular the claimant complained of the failures by the respondent to disclose . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.539742

Champion v North Norfolk District Council and Another: Admn 7 May 2013

The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for the erection of silos for the storage of barley. He said that the development might adversely impact on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Held: The judicial review succeeded. The planning committee would have been entitled on the material before them in 2011 rationally to reach the conclusion that there was no relevant risk requiring appropriate assessment or an EIA. However, such a conclusion was inconsistent with the decision at the same time to impose a requirement for testing of water quality and remediation if necessary: ‘These conditions, which could only be imposed where the Committee considered them necessary, suggested that the Committee considered that there was a risk that pollutants could enter the river. This would also have been a rational and reasonable conclusion available to the Committee, in the light of the detailed matters set out above.
It does not seem to me that the council could, rationally, adopt both positions at once . . I do not consider that it is open for me to consider that this inconsistency was simply a function of local democracy at work, and that it could be ignored. . . ‘ The decision could not be saved by exercising a discretion not to quash.

James Dingemans QC
[2013] EWHC 1065 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 61
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Others CA 18-Dec-2013
The claimant had succeeded in a challenge to the grant of planning permission for the building of two barley silos. He said that the development was near and might affect Site of Special Scientic interest. The Council had at the same time said that . .
At first instance – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510193

Crosswait v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goernment: Admn 12 Aug 2009

The claimant appealed against an enforcement notice. He had built a dwelling on land with only agricultural use allowed and without permission. He claimed that the land had been incorporated into a garden.
Held: An appeal would be hopeless. Leave was refused.
Behrens HHJ
[2009] EWHC 2119 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McInerney v Portland Port Limited QBD 2001
In order to identify whether land comprises of garden, it is necessary not only to look at its appearance and its characteristics, but also to its use. . .
Cited – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 3-Jul-2008
The court gave guidance on the meaning of ‘garden’ in planning law. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.372684

Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 20 Jun 2008

[2008] EWHC 1601 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 23-Mar-2009
The Court was asked whether a planning permission granted permission for the use of a piece of land for purposes ancillary to a dwelling house, so that that land became part of the curtilage of the house, and permitted the construction of a tennis . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.270841

Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and others: QBD 1977

The Council appealed against the quashing of its decision to impose certan conditions on a planning permission requiring the demolition of two hangars at the airfield subject of the application.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed.
Mr Justice Robert Goff set out the meaning of the subsectio: ‘The subsection provides that no enforcement notice shall be served in respect of such a development. It does not provide, as it easily could have done if such had been the intention, that no enforcement notice should be served on the Crown in respect of such development. It follows that, if a private citizen should subsequently acquire any such land from the Crown, he would not have to apply for planning permission in respect of development within the subsection. He too would be protected from the service of an enforcement notice by the terms of the subsection which are quite explicit.’
Lord Widgery CJ, Michael Davies and Robert Goff JJ
(1977) 35 P and CR 170
Town and Country Planning Act 1947 87(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
At first instance – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Appeal from – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 14-Jul-1978
The Council had, when granting planning permission for the use of certain hangars on an airfield, required that on the end of the use, the hangars should be removed. That decision had been quashed by the repondent’s inspector, and again by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.238432

Peel Investments Limited v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 21 Apr 1998

[1998] EWHC Admin 425
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Peel Investments (North) Ltd v Council of Metropolitan Borough of Bury CA 8-Feb-1999
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.138546

U and Partners (East Anglia) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Broads Authority: Admn 13 Jul 2011

The claimant sought to challenge the grant of planning permission given to allow works to implement a flood management programme, saying that decision had failed to comply with the 1999 Regulations in that no Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out.
Collins J
[2011] EWHC 1824 (Admin), [2011] JPL 1583
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, Directive 85/337/EEC, Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 22
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.441876

Grant-Nicholas, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bromsgrove District Council: Admn 14 Jun 2004

Application to quash district plan
[2004] EWHC 1452 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.198527

Friends of The Earth Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Heathrow Airport Ltd: SC 16 Dec 2020

The Court considered a challenge to the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport
Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt
[2020] UKSC 52, [2021] PTSR 190
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.656804

PPG11 Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Dorset County Council and Another: Admn 6 Jun 2003

[2003] EWHC 1311 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.185379

Davies, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 28 Aug 2008

The claimant sought to challenge permission given for a new M6 link road.
Held: The objection was unarguable and was dismissed. There was a need to introduce a requirement for prior consent to applications under section 288.
Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 2223 (Admin)
Bailii, Times
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
England and Wales

Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.276532

Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 1 Sep 2008

Application was made to appeal against procedural orders in the course of a challenge to a refusal of planning permision.
[2008] EWHC 2143 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Bovale Ltd and Another CA 11-Mar-2009
The applicant had sought to quash a refusal of its plannng application. An order had been made for the service of evidence, and the judge had set down an order which was expressed to be of more general application. The Secretary of State now . .
See Also – Bovale Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 13-Oct-2008
Application to quash a decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant to determine the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the second defendant to refuse planning permission for the development of what was described in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.276533

Bown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 26 Mar 2003

The court rejected objections to a proposed bypass on the grounds that it would interfere with otter habitats, and an area which should be designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds.
Held: The Wild Birds Directive had not seperately been implemented into UK law, but rather left to planning legislation. The challenge failed.
Collins J
[2003] EWHC 819 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.185019

South Lanarkshire Council v The Lord Advocate As Representing the Scottish Ministers and others: IHCS 30 Aug 2001

Following a planning permission the applicant’s land became subject to compulsory purchase, and they were entitled to a certificate of appropriate alternative development. An application was made, but much later, and then granted on appeal. The respondents appealed against the certificate as regards one use.
Held: The grant may have been more favourable to the applicant than might have been the case if the decision had been made properly, but it was too late to resile on the decision.
Lord President, Lord Prosser, Lady Cosgrove
[2001] ScotHC 95, [2001] ScotCS 213
Bailii, Bailii
Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 51) 29
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .
Cited – Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.166260

Wallington v Secretary of State for Wales: CA 12 Nov 1990

The landowner appealed against an enforcement notice, saying that though she kept a large number of dogs (44), this was for domestic pleasure purposes, and was only incidental to the use as a private domestic dwelling.
Held: The appeal failed. It was sensible to have regard to what would be the normal use of a dwelling house (ie a generic approach) in order to decide whether, as a matter of fact and degree, the activities should reasonably be regarded as incidental to the enjoyment of the particular dwelling house as a dwelling house. A use involving such a large number of dogs was not merely incidental.
Slade LJ said: ‘The wording of section 22 of the 1971 Act in my opinion made it necessary for the inspector to consider two separate questions. First, had a ‘material change in the use of’ the premises, within the meaning of section 22(1), taken place by reason of the fact that a large number of dogs were kept there? This was the ground upon which the council in their enforcement notice had alleged that development, and thus breach of planning control, had taken place. If, though only if, the answer to the first question was in the affirmative, the inspector had then to consider the second question, namely whether the use of the premises for keeping of dogs in large numbers constituted the use of the premises ‘for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such’ within the meaning of section 22(2)(d).
The inspector, in para 26 of his decision, in effect answered the first question in the affirmative but answered the second question in the negative. He thus concluded that the use of the premises for the relevant purpose did not fall within the exemption conferred by section 22(2)(d).’ and ‘The formula makes it necessary to consider whether the relevant purpose is incidental to the enjoyment of ‘the dwellinghouse’ (i.e. the particular dwellinghouse in question) as such, not any dwellinghouse.’
Lord Justice Slade considered the phrase ‘of and incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse’ saying: ‘As drafted, however, the phrase must mean ‘of and incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse’. The mere fact that an occupier may genuinely regard the relevant activity as a hobby cannot possibly suffice to prove by itself that the purpose is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse.’
Farquharson LJ said that the concept of what is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such involved an element of objective reasonableness and that it could not rest solely on the unrestrained whim of the occupier of the dwelling house.
Slade, Farquharson LJJ
Times 12-Nov-1990, [1991] 1 PLR 87
Town and Country Planning Act 1970 55(2)(d)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gwynedd Council v Secretary of State for Wales and Dowson Admn 31-Oct-1997
. .
Cited – Holding v First Secretary of State Admn 9-Dec-2003
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.425816

Girls Public Day School Trust v Minister of Community and Country Planning: ChD 1951

A company was formed for the purpose of establishing in England, public day schools for the education of girls. The position on the day appointed by the minister of Town and Country planning under the 1947 Act, section 119, namely July 18th 1948, what was that the articles of the company empowered the preference shareholders, in seeking to enforce their rights in relation to arrears of dividends or the return of their capital, to put to the company into liquidation.
Held: That being one of the purposes for which the land was held on the appointed today, it was impossible to say that it was, on that day, held for charitable purposes only. It was immaterial that none of the preference shareholders had any intention of enforcing his rights; the determination by the minister that the land was not land to which section 85 of the 1947 Act applied was therefore right, and the company was accordingly not exempt from development charge under section 85.
Roxburgh J
[1951] Ch 400, (1951) 95 Sol Jo 76, (1951) P and CR 423
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.653168

Jolliffe v Exeter Corporation: CA 1967

Mr Joliffe owned a garage on a busy road. Adjoining land was involved in a widening scheme, the result of which was to leave his garage at the end of a cul de sac, though no land was taken from him.
Held: Section 10 gave him no right to compensation. Where the execution of the works is facilitated by a stopping-up order made by a different compensating authority, under a different statutory scheme not incorporating the 1965 Act, the stopping up does not give rise to a claim under section 10.
Davies LJ noted that the stopping up of the street was done by the Minister under the Town and Country Planning Act, which made no provision for compensation.
Russell LJ said that: ‘the execution of the works authorised, that is to say, the construction of the highway’ had no injurious effect on the plaintiff’s property and ‘The damage was already done. Coombe Street, before a pick or spade had been laid on the works, had been turned into a cul-de-sac so far as the plaintiff was concerned.’
Lord Denning said od a stopping up order that it: ‘authorised the stopping up of various streets in Exeter, including this part of Coombe Street. But it is important to observe that the Act of 1947 contains no provision for compensation. In this respect the Act is like the old Highways Act, 1835. The legislature provided for local inquiries and confirmation by quarter sessions, but no provisions for compensation. Under that Act the stopping up might ruin a man’s trade, but he could recover no compensation. So here, the stopping up of Coombe Street may damage Mr Joliffe’s trade in that street, but he can recover no compensation on that account.’
Lord Denning, Davies LJ, Russell LJ
[1967] 1 WLR 993
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.259679